Bimetallic electrical Potential and conservation of charge

Science > Physics > Bimetallic electrical Potential and conservation of charge

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 1

Topic:	Science > Physics
User:	"Paul Stowe"
Date:	05 Oct 2005 10:30:44 PM
Object:	Bimetallic electrical Potential and conservation of charge

As Volta demonstrated in the last decade of the 18th century when
two different metals are brought into physical contact (even when
both are, to all measurable detectability, electrically neutral,
a.k.a. no measurable potential) there will be generated a constant
and measurable non-zero Potential at the two opposing ends of the
bimetallic coupling. To my understanding, as long as no electrolyte
is present the metals are not be affected by any continuous circuit
created in this fashion. Now to my question,
Given that both metals are/were initially electrically neutral and
assuming conservation of charge, what creates and maintains the
measured Potential?
Paul Stowe
.

User: "Human Individual Metamorphosis"
Title: Re: Bimetallic electrical Potential and conservation of charge	05 Oct 2005 10:34:46 PM

"Paul Stowe" <TheAetherist@best.net> wrote in message
news:ng49k1lf7fecmsa8g239ehml2lb7f1necl@4ax.com...

As Volta demonstrated in the last decade of the 18th century when
two different metals are brought into physical contact (even when
both are, to all measurable detectability, electrically neutral,
a.k.a. no measurable potential) there will be generated a constant
and measurable non-zero Potential at the two opposing ends of the
bimetallic coupling. To my understanding, as long as no electrolyte
is present the metals are not be affected by any continuous circuit
created in this fashion. Now to my question,

Given that both metals are/were initially electrically neutral and
assuming conservation of charge, what creates and maintains the
measured Potential?

Paul Stowe

It is potential, not current or power.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Bimetallic electrical Potential and conservation of charge	05 Oct 2005 10:54:23 PM

In sci.physics Human Individual Metamorphosis <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

"Paul Stowe" <TheAetherist@best.net> wrote in message
news:ng49k1lf7fecmsa8g239ehml2lb7f1necl@4ax.com...

As Volta demonstrated in the last decade of the 18th century when
two different metals are brought into physical contact (even when
both are, to all measurable detectability, electrically neutral,
a.k.a. no measurable potential) there will be generated a constant
and measurable non-zero Potential at the two opposing ends of the
bimetallic coupling. To my understanding, as long as no electrolyte
is present the metals are not be affected by any continuous circuit
created in this fashion. Now to my question,

Given that both metals are/were initially electrically neutral and
assuming conservation of charge, what creates and maintains the
measured Potential?

Paul Stowe

It is potential, not current or power.

Yep, that's the question.
Anyway, to grossly oversimplfy, it is because of where the electrons
are; add heat to enhance the effect.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.

User: "Paul Stowe"
Title: Re: Bimetallic electrical Potential and conservation of charge	06 Oct 2005 07:49:14 PM

On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 03:54:23 +0000 (UTC),

wrote:

In sci.physics Human Individual Metamorphosis <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

"Paul Stowe" <TheAetherist@best.net> wrote in message
news:ng49k1lf7fecmsa8g239ehml2lb7f1necl@4ax.com...

As Volta demonstrated in the last decade of the 18th century when
two different metals are brought into physical contact (even when
both are, to all measurable detectability, electrically neutral,
a.k.a. no measurable potential) there will be generated a constant
and measurable non-zero Potential at the two opposing ends of the
bimetallic coupling. To my understanding, as long as no electrolyte
is present the metals are not be affected by any continuous circuit
created in this fashion. Now to my question,

Given that both metals are/were initially electrically neutral and
assuming conservation of charge, what creates and maintains the
measured Potential?

Paul Stowe

It is potential, not current or power.

Unless one can violate Ohm's Law V = IR, I = V/R. Thus for any finite
positive value for V & R, I is finite positive. Thus P = IV so there
will exist available (P)ower as long a Potential V is non zero.

Yep, that's the question.

Indeed, which is why I asked it :)

Anyway, to grossly oversimplfy, it is because of where the electrons
are; add heat to enhance the effect.

While I agree your response is way to vague. What do you mean by
"it is because of where the electrons are"
Aren't the alot of free conduction electrons in metals? As in,
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9035281
Paul Stowe
.

User: "Bilge"
Title: Re: Bimetallic electrical Potential and conservation of charge	08 Oct 2005 10:57:00 AM

Paul Stowe:

Unless one can violate Ohm's Law V = IR, I = V/R.

I can violate ohm's law in quite a few way, several of which are:
(1) an ordinary vacuum tube, (follows the child-langmuir law),
(2) any ordinary diode, (follows the diode equation)
(3) any ordinary transistor (ibid)
(4) any ordinary FET, MOSFET or other field effect device, (ibid)
(5) a spark plug
Which I think covers just about every electronic device in
existence except for wires, which are called resistors when
they don't conduct very well. Taken as a whole, one would have
to suspect that ohm's law is fairly specific to particular
class of phenomena, the explanation of which is not found in
ohm's law.

Thus for any finite positive value for V & R, I is finite positive.
Thus P = IV so there will exist available (P)ower as long a Potential
V is non zero.

There will? Then how come the potential that binds electrons to the
surface of a conductor doesn't result in the conductor radiatiating
until the conduction electrons fall off?
The `V' in V = IR is not an electrosatic potential. It's the
``emf'' also called the electromotance. It's a force per unit
charge, which has no explanation within classical E&M without
the ad hoc assumption that J = \sigma E in a conductor, without
any explanation of what makes a conductor a conductor or why
that should be the case.
Obviously, that conflicts with the lorenz force, which says that
charges are accelerated in electric fields, not that charges move at
constant velocities proportional to the electric fields. Ohm made such
an ad hoc assumption based on the time honored tradition of deriving an
equation from the curve fit to empirical data and making it useful by
realizing that he only needed the linear term to have a good rule of
thumb that would likely be explained later by a more comprehensive
theory. The arrival of quantum mechanics fulfilled that expectation,
but that means the explanation of conductors requires quantum mechanics.
Classical E&M doesn't cut it.

Aren't the alot of free conduction electrons in metals?

Sure. It's called the free electron model. The next order of
improvement is called the nearly free electron model of conductors.

As in,

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9035281

As in, ``Introduction to Solid State Physics,'', Kittel, C.
.

User: "Rod Ryker"
Title: Re: Bimetallic electrical Potential and conservation of charge	08 Oct 2005 07:21:52 PM

"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>
wrote in message
news:slrndkfua6.q37.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...

Paul Stowe:

Unless one can violate Ohm's Law V = IR, I =

V/R.

I can violate ohm's law in quite a few way,

several of which are:

(1) an ordinary vacuum tube, (follows the

child-langmuir law),

(2) any ordinary diode, (follows the diode

equation)

(3) any ordinary transistor (ibid)

(4) any ordinary FET, MOSFET or other field

effect device, (ibid)

(5) a spark plug

Rod: You forgot welding arc's, and you would still
be wrong.

Which I think covers just about every

electronic device in

existence except for wires, which are called

resistors when

they don't conduct very well. Taken as a whole,

one would have

to suspect that ohm's law is fairly specific to

particular

class of phenomena, the explanation of which is

not found in

ohm's law.

Rod: And you are wrong.

Thus for any finite positive value for V & R,

I is finite positive.

Thus P = IV so there will exist available

(P)ower as long a Potential

V is non zero.

There will? Then how come the potential that

binds electrons to the

surface of a conductor doesn't result in the

conductor radiatiating

until the conduction electrons fall off?

The `V' in V = IR is not an electrosatic

potential. It's the

``emf'' also called the electromotance. It's a

force per unit

charge, which has no explanation within

classical E&M without

the ad hoc assumption that J = \sigma E in a

conductor, without

any explanation of what makes a conductor a

conductor or why

that should be the case.

Obviously, that conflicts with the lorenz

force, which says that

charges are accelerated in electric fields, not

that charges move at

constant velocities proportional to the electric

fields. Ohm made such

an ad hoc assumption based on the time honored

tradition of deriving an

equation from the curve fit to empirical data

and making it useful by

realizing that he only needed the linear term to

have a good rule of

thumb that would likely be explained later by a

more comprehensive

theory. The arrival of quantum mechanics

fulfilled that expectation,

but that means the explanation of conductors

requires quantum mechanics.

Classical E&M doesn't cut it.

Aren't the alot of free conduction electrons

in metals?

Sure. It's called the free electron model. The

next order of

improvement is called the nearly free electron

model of conductors.

As in,

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9035281

As in, ``Introduction to Solid State

Physics,'', Kittel, C.

Rod: You provided a very poor post Bilge. :(
--
Rod Ryker...
The intricacies of nature is man's cannon fodder.
.

User: "Bilge"
Title: Re: Bimetallic electrical Potential and conservation of charge	12 Oct 2005 01:18:32 PM

Rod Ryker:

Rod: You forgot welding arc's, and you would still
be wrong.

Stop breathing your acetylene. Even if it's too late for
what's left of your brain to recover, you'll still save a
lot of money in welding supplies.
.

User: "Tom Roberts"
Title: Re: Bimetallic electrical Potential and conservation of charge	06 Oct 2005 08:52:24 PM

As nobody else has answered, let me. Uncle Al tried, but used so much
jargon his answer is impenetrable.
Paul Stowe wrote:

As Volta demonstrated in the last decade of the 18th century when
two different metals are brought into physical contact (even when
both are, to all measurable detectability, electrically neutral,
a.k.a. no measurable potential) there will be generated a constant
and measurable non-zero Potential at the two opposing ends of the
bimetallic coupling. To my understanding, as long as no electrolyte
is present the metals are not be affected by any continuous circuit
created in this fashion. Now to my question,

Given that both metals are/were initially electrically neutral and
assuming conservation of charge, what creates and maintains the
measured Potential?

Here's a high-level and rather loose explanation:
Metals are composed of atoms that bond together such that some of the
electrons are tightly bound to the nuclei, and others (conduction
electrons) are essentially free to move around the metal (but normally
remain inside the metal). Different metals have different ratios of
these types of electrons, and blocks of different metals have different
densities of nuclei plus bound electrons. Place two different blocks of
metal together and at the joined surface the two blocks' nuclei plus
bound electrons will set up a nonuniform electric field near the
junction (due to the difference in their densities) and the conduction
electrons in both blocks will quickly move to cancel it; in doing so one
block's electrons move further than the other's. This results in a
difference in the density of conduction electrons on the other sides of
the blocks, which when added to the constant density of nuclei plus
bound electrons sets up an electric field there, which yields a
potential difference between the outer sides (the nuclei plus bound
electrons have constant density throughout the metal, but the conduction
electrons don't).
Note that when you connect to the outer sides of the blocks you must
beware of the same effect at the connections.
This is a loose description -- do not rely on it for details; I have
neglected the atomic structure, which is important. Remember that
"placing blocks together" means their electrons repel each other and
prevent them from interpenetrating each other; the conduction electrons
by themselves cannot do that (they move freely, even across the boundary
if necessary), but the nuclei plus bound electrons can.
Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
.

User: "Paul Stowe"
Title: Re: Bimetallic electrical Potential and conservation of charge	08 Oct 2005 11:51:47 AM

On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 01:52:24 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote:

As nobody else has answered, let me. Uncle Al tried, but used so much
jargon his answer is impenetrable.

Paul Stowe wrote:

As Volta demonstrated in the last decade of the 18th century when
two different metals are brought into physical contact (even when
both are, to all measurable detectability, electrically neutral,
a.k.a. no measurable potential) there will be generated a constant
and measurable non-zero Potential at the two opposing ends of the
bimetallic coupling. To my understanding, as long as no electrolyte
is present the metals are not be affected by any continuous circuit
created in this fashion. Now to my question,

Given that both metals are/were initially electrically neutral and
assuming conservation of charge, what creates and maintains the
measured Potential?

Here's a high-level and rather loose explanation:

Good enough for now...

Metals are composed of atoms that bond together such that some of
the electrons are tightly bound to the nuclei, and others (conduction
electrons) are essentially free to move around the metal (but normally
remain inside the metal). Different metals have different ratios of
these types of electrons, and blocks of different metals have different
densities of nuclei plus bound electrons. Place two different blocks of
metal together and at the joined surface the two blocks' nuclei plus
bound electrons will set up a nonuniform electric field near the
junction (due to the difference in their densities) and the conduction
electrons in both blocks will quickly move to cancel it; in doing so one
block's electrons move further than the other's. This results in a
difference in the density of conduction electrons on the other sides of
the blocks, which when added to the constant density of nuclei plus
bound electrons sets up an electric field there, which yields a
potential difference between the outer sides (the nuclei plus bound
electrons have constant density throughout the metal, but the conduction
electrons don't).

So, is it correct to say that in this situation there exists no
electrically neutral state?

Note that when you connect to the outer sides of the blocks you must
beware of the same effect at the connections.

Of course. Usually these are considered 'point' (very little
surface) contacts.

This is a loose description -- do not rely on it for details; I
have neglected the atomic structure, which is important. Remember
that "placing blocks together" means their electrons repel each
other and prevent them from interpenetrating each other; the
conduction electrons by themselves cannot do that (they move freely,
even across the boundary if necessary), but the nuclei plus bound
electrons can.

cannot?
Paul Stowe
.

User: "Tom Roberts"
Title: Re: Bimetallic electrical Potential and conservation of charge	08 Oct 2005 07:02:20 PM

Paul Stowe wrote:

On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 01:52:24 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote:

So, is it correct to say that in this situation there exists no
electrically neutral state?

No. As I discussed above, an electrically-neutral conducting block can
become electrically polarized, while remaining neutral.
IOW: "electrically neutral" discusses the electric monopole, while
electric polarization is the dipole; they are independent.
Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
.

User: "Rod Ryker"
Title: Re: Bimetallic electrical Potential and conservation of charge	08 Oct 2005 08:31:53 PM

"Tom Roberts" <

> wrote in
message
news:g6Z1f.1153$Rh5.1007@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...

Paul Stowe wrote:

On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 01:52:24 GMT, Tom Roberts

> wrote:

Metals are composed of atoms that bond

together such that some of

the electrons are tightly bound to the nuclei,

and others (conduction

electrons) are essentially free to move around

the metal (but normally

remain inside the metal). Different metals

have different ratios of

these types of electrons, and blocks of

different metals have different

densities of nuclei plus bound electrons.

Place two different blocks of

metal together and at the joined surface the

two blocks' nuclei plus

bound electrons will set up a nonuniform

electric field near the

junction (due to the difference in their

densities) and the conduction

electrons in both blocks will quickly move to

cancel it; in doing so one

block's electrons move further than the

other's. This results in a

difference in the density of conduction

electrons on the other sides of

the blocks, which when added to the constant

density of nuclei plus

bound electrons sets up an electric field

there, which yields a

potential difference between the outer sides

(the nuclei plus bound

electrons have constant density throughout the

metal, but the conduction

electrons don't).

So, is it correct to say that in this

situation there exists no

electrically neutral state?

No. As I discussed above, an

electrically-neutral conducting block can

become electrically polarized, while remaining

neutral.

IOW: "electrically neutral" discusses the

electric monopole, while

electric polarization is the dipole; they are

independent.

Tom Roberts

Rod: Then it seems electrons are kind of Dipoles,
yes?
--
Rod Ryker...
The intricacies of nature is man's cannon fodder.
.

User: "Tom Roberts"
Title: Re: Bimetallic electrical Potential and conservation of charge	08 Oct 2005 09:08:18 PM

Rod Ryker wrote:

"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote in
message
news:g6Z1f.1153$Rh5.1007@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...

IOW: "electrically neutral" discusses the electric monopole, while
electric polarization is the dipole; they are independent.

Rod: Then it seems electrons are kind of Dipoles,
yes?

No. Electrons are electric monopoles. Their electric dipole moment is
measured to be consistent with zero (as are all higher moments that have
been measured).
They do, however, have a nonzero magnetic dipole moment (which is, of
course, completely different).
The metal blocks I was discussing are electrically neutral but have
nonzero electric dipoles when placed together (as discussed).
Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
.

User: "Rod Ryker"
Title: Re: Bimetallic electrical Potential and conservation of charge	08 Oct 2005 11:20:57 PM

"Tom Roberts" <

> wrote in
message
news:mY_1f.1655$Si4.1639@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...

Rod Ryker wrote:

"Tom Roberts" <

> wrote in
message

news:g6Z1f.1153$Rh5.1007@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...

IOW: "electrically neutral" discusses the

electric monopole, while

electric polarization is the dipole; they are

independent.

Rod: Then it seems electrons are kind of

Dipoles,

yes?

No. Electrons are electric monopoles. Their

electric dipole moment is

measured to be consistent with zero (as are all

higher moments that have

been measured).

They do, however, have a nonzero magnetic dipole

moment (which is, of

course, completely different).

Rod: You are saying a rubber balloon holding many
electrons,
after rubbed agaisnt ones hair, are attracted and
NO dipole attraction? ;)
How can these electrons on the balloon be sooooo
tightly packed
without repelling each other?

The metal blocks I was discussing are

electrically neutral but have

nonzero electric dipoles when placed together

(as discussed).

Tom Roberts

--
Rod Ryker...
The intricacies of nature is man's cannon fodder.
.

User: "Paul Stowe"
Title: Re: Bimetallic electrical Potential and conservation of charge	09 Oct 2005 04:44:55 PM

On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 00:02:20 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote:

Paul Stowe wrote:

On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 01:52:24 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote:

So, is it correct to say that in this situation there exists no
electrically neutral state?

No. As I discussed above, an electrically-neutral conducting block can
become electrically polarized, while remaining neutral.

If the system becomes constantly polarized just from plane
contact of their surfaces, when both, in isolation, were
initially totally neutral and without any dipole such that
when conbined there is sustainable constant power draw in
the circuit (IV) in the case of closing a loop circuit
there must be a source for this energy. It has to come from
somewhere to constantly pump an electrical current around
against resistance. If the two metals are electrically
neutral, and remain, so where does the force to produces this
energy come from, thermal? Any other guesses?

IOW: "electrically neutral" discusses the electric monopole,
while electric polarization is the dipole; they are independent.

To sustain a macroscopic dipole and to be able to draw energy
form the circuit a net force needs to be created. You can't
get something from nothing, right?
Paul Stowe
.

User: "Tom Roberts"
Title: Re: Bimetallic electrical Potential and conservation of charge	09 Oct 2005 05:39:17 PM

Paul Stowe wrote:

On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 00:02:20 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote:

On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 01:52:24 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote:

Metals are composed of atoms [...]

So, is it correct to say that in this situation there exists no
electrically neutral state?

No. As I discussed above, an electrically-neutral conducting block can
become electrically polarized, while remaining neutral.

Except, as I pointed out before, you must consider this very same effect
when you connect a wire from one outer side to the other (your "in the
case of closing a loop circuit"). In fact, the conduction electrons will
"just happen" to arrange themselves so no current flows (except perhaps
briefly when initially connected).
Yes, there can remain a permanent electric dipole between the outer
faces; there is also one in the wire, and they are equal.

To sustain a macroscopic dipole and to be able to draw energy
form the circuit a net force needs to be created. You can't
get something from nothing, right?

Except for transients when connected, there is no current, no "net
force", no "energy draw", and no "something from nothing". Everything
just sits there. <shrug>
Exercise for the reader: assume there are transients when the
wire is connected between the two outer faces. Where does the
energy for them come from (qualitatively)? Be sure to include
EM radiation. Hint: Compare to what happens when disconnected.
Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
.

User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox"
Title: Re: Bimetallic electrical Potential and conservation of charge	05 Oct 2005 11:36:35 PM

Dear Paul Stowe:
"Paul Stowe" <TheAetherist@best.net> wrote in message
news:ng49k1lf7fecmsa8g239ehml2lb7f1necl@4ax.com...

As Volta demonstrated in the last decade of the 18th century
when two different metals are brought into physical contact
(even when both are, to all measurable detectability,
electrically neutral, a.k.a. no measurable potential) there
will
be generated a constant and measurable non-zero Potential
at the two opposing ends of the bimetallic coupling. To my
understanding, as long as no electrolyte is present the metals
are not be affected by any continuous circuit created in this
fashion.

"thermocouple", "thermopile", "Fermi energy"

Now to my question,

Given that both metals are/were initially electrically neutral
and
assuming conservation of charge, what creates and maintains
the
measured Potential?

http://www.nphheaters.com/technical/thermo_letter.htm
David A. Smith
.

User: "Rod Ryker"
Title: Re: Bimetallic electrical Potential and conservation of charge	06 Oct 2005 12:59:14 AM

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:iR11f.13260$lq6.3837@fed1read01...

Dear Paul Stowe:

"Paul Stowe" <TheAetherist@best.net> wrote in message
news:ng49k1lf7fecmsa8g239ehml2lb7f1necl@4ax.com...

As Volta demonstrated in the last decade of the 18th century
when two different metals are brought into physical contact
(even when both are, to all measurable detectability,
electrically neutral, a.k.a. no measurable potential) there
will
be generated a constant and measurable non-zero Potential
at the two opposing ends of the bimetallic coupling. To my
understanding, as long as no electrolyte is present the metals
are not be affected by any continuous circuit created in this
fashion.

"thermocouple", "thermopile", "Fermi energy"

Now to my question,

Given that both metals are/were initially electrically neutral
and
assuming conservation of charge, what creates and maintains
the
measured Potential?

http://www.nphheaters.com/technical/thermo_letter.htm

David A. Smith

Rod: After reviewing the first illustration and text of
the site you posted, I see that a short circuit is illustrated. :)
--
Rod Ryker...
The intricacies of nature is man's cannon fodder.
.

User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox"
Title: Re: Bimetallic electrical Potential and conservation of charge	06 Oct 2005 08:15:49 AM

Dear Rod Ryker:
"Rod Ryker" <rryker@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:72681$4344bd2b$d8442ec5$19500@FUSE.NET...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com>
wrote in message
news:iR11f.13260$lq6.3837@fed1read01...

Dear Paul Stowe:

"Paul Stowe" <TheAetherist@best.net> wrote in message
news:ng49k1lf7fecmsa8g239ehml2lb7f1necl@4ax.com...

As Volta demonstrated in the last decade of the 18th century
when two different metals are brought into physical contact
(even when both are, to all measurable detectability,
electrically neutral, a.k.a. no measurable potential) there
will
be generated a constant and measurable non-zero Potential
at the two opposing ends of the bimetallic coupling. To my
understanding, as long as no electrolyte is present the
metals
are not be affected by any continuous circuit created in
this
fashion.

"thermocouple", "thermopile", "Fermi energy"

Now to my question,

Given that both metals are/were initially electrically
neutral and assuming conservation of charge, what
creates and maintains the measured Potential?

http://www.nphheaters.com/technical/thermo_letter.htm

Rod: After reviewing the first illustration and text of
the site you posted, I see that a short circuit is illustrated.
:)

Yes. A wheatstone bridge could be used to "un short circuit" it,
by stopping any current flow. I suppose the potential could
drive a FET directly...
But Paul seemed more interested in where the potential that can
*drive* the short circuit comes from, rather than applications.
It comes from the "conduction electron behavior" of the
metals/alloys/composites forming the two joined elements.
David A. Smith
.

User: "Paul Stowe"
Title: Re: Bimetallic electrical Potential and conservation of charge	06 Oct 2005 07:38:48 PM

On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 06:15:49 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com $dlzc$" <N: dlzc1 D:cox
T:net@nospam.com> wrote:

Dear Rod Ryker:

"Rod Ryker" <rryker@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:72681$4344bd2b$d8442ec5$19500@FUSE.NET...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com>
wrote in message
news:iR11f.13260$lq6.3837@fed1read01...

Dear Paul Stowe:

"Paul Stowe" <TheAetherist@best.net> wrote in message
news:ng49k1lf7fecmsa8g239ehml2lb7f1necl@4ax.com...

As Volta demonstrated in the last decade of the 18th century
when two different metals are brought into physical contact
(even when both are, to all measurable detectability,
electrically neutral, a.k.a. no measurable potential) there
will be generated a constant and measurable non-zero Potential
at the two opposing ends of the bimetallic coupling. To my
understanding, as long as no electrolyte is present the
metals are not be affected by any continuous circuit created
in this fashion.

"thermocouple", "thermopile", "Fermi energy"

I guess I don't understand this without a thermal gradient.
With a thermal gradient the Seebeck Effect, sure.

Now to my question,

Given that both metals are/were initially electrically
neutral and assuming conservation of charge, what
creates and maintains the measured Potential?

http://www.nphheaters.com/technical/thermo_letter.htm

Rod: After reviewing the first illustration and text of
the site you posted, I see that a short circuit is illustrated.
:)

Right. As Volta realized the Potential (thus available power)
is interesting but too small to be useful. Thus he introduced
the electrolyte and thus was born the modern version of the
common battery.

It comes from the "conduction electron behavior" of the
metals/alloys/composites forming the two joined elements.

I'm sure it is due to a discontinuity at the connecting plane of
the two metals. But, as Al points out in his reply, even
dielectrics have this effect. That's why a clear plastic cover
on a paper report sticks & crackles when separated after being
left sittingstill & unattended for awhile.
With metals one would think that the free conduction electrons
would quickly & easily rearrange to counter any such
discontinuous Potentials. One would not expect a continuous
Potential (thus slight available power) from such a static system.
But, more importantly, if charge is conserved, how can this happen?
Paul Stowe

David A. Smith

User: "sal"
Title: Re: Bimetallic electrical Potential and conservation of charge	07 Oct 2005 03:29:41 PM

On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 00:38:48 +0000, Paul Stowe wrote:

[ snip ]

I'm sure it is due to a discontinuity at the connecting plane of
the two metals. But, as Al points out in his reply, even
dielectrics have this effect. That's why a clear plastic cover on
a paper report sticks & crackles when separated after being left
sittingstill & unattended for awhile.

I don't pretend to understand thermocouples, but I think I understand
what's going on with a clear plastic sheet and it's a little
different. You're starting with a sheet of plastic which _already_
has a charge on it, donated by whatever black-box process; static
charges are easy to come by and some clear covers seem to come from
the factory pre-charged. Since the plastic is a non-conductor, once
it's charged it tends to stay that way.
And, once you get a charge on a non-conducting sheet, if you place it
in contact with something else -- preferably a conductor of some sort
-- you make a capacitor. It's a capacitor where the charges are
"frozen in place" on one plate, but none the less it acts a lot like a
regular capacitor in most ways.
Let the permanently charged sheet of plastic sit on <whatever> for a
while, and it will induce a charge in the sheet of <whatever>. If the
plastic is negative, then some of the electrons in the other sheet
will tend to run off into the environment by whatever paths you
provide for them, leaving a positive charge behind.
The "capacitor", at full charge, might be at a volt or two, or perhaps
much less.
Now, pull the plastic sheet off whatever it's on. As you separate the
plates of the "capacitor" you boost the voltage to which it's charged,
as a quick glance at the formula for the capacity of a simple
parallel-plate capacitor will show. The "work" you put in while
pulling the plastic away is what provides the energy for the crackling
you hear.
Here's an amusing experiment that sort of "institutionalizes" the
effect. Stick a thick clear plastic sheet to a solid backing, with a
handle on it. A sheet of cardboard for backing and an empty paper
towel roll for a handle will do. Get the plastic charged, one way or
another (rub with fur or something). (Maybe you should do that first,
before sticking it to the backing, come to think of it. Several
stacked sheets of plastic might be good here, too. Experiment...)
Next, find yourself an aluminum pie pan, and set it down on some nice
non-conducting surface (a plastic tablecloth will probably do, but you
want to make sure there's nothing conductive underneath it, either).
Stick it firmly in place somehow, so it won't just "lift up" when
pulled gently; but make sure it's not grounded.
NOW, the fun bit. Put your plastic "plate" down on the pie pan, with
as much of it in contact as you can get. Touch the pie pan to ground
it, so the capacitor can "charge" (you might get a tiny shock here,
but you probably won't feel anything).
FINALLY, lift the plastic "plate" by its handle. When it's a few feet
from the pie plate, touch the pie plate. ZZAAAP!
You can do it again, too (just remember to ground the pie pan
momentarily while the plastic sheet is in contact with it each time).
It'll work for as many cycles as you like, because the energy's coming
from the work you do pulling the plastic sheet off the pie pan, and
the charges on the plastic sheet aren't getting "used up".
If you try it let me know if it works. I've read about it but never
got around to actually making one! (And I don't recall the name --
it's a somebody-or-other generator, I think, but I forget who
"somebody" is.)
--
Nospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email
.

User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox"
Title: Re: Bimetallic electrical Potential and conservation of charge	07 Oct 2005 06:08:41 PM

Dear sal:
"sal" <pragmatist@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.10.07.20.29.38.805456@nospam.org...

On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 00:38:48 +0000, Paul Stowe wrote:

....

If you try it let me know if it works. I've read about it but
never
got around to actually making one! (And I don't recall the
name --
it's a somebody-or-other generator, I think, but I forget who
"somebody" is.)

Another neat rick is to adhere clear "scotch tape" on a mirror.
Take the mirror into a *very* dark room, then *RIP* the tape off.
Should be some glow created at the point of separation, since
"adhesives stick to electrons"... ;>)
David A. Smith
.

User: "Rod Ryker"
Title: Re: Bimetallic electrical Potential and conservation of charge	07 Oct 2005 01:14:30 AM

Paul Stowe <TheAetherist@best.net> wrote in message
news:i5fbk1dd2ajkppk5mlgdmq8v7orgb58tsg@4ax.com...

On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 06:15:49 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com $dlzc$" <N: dlzc1

D:cox

T:net@nospam.com> wrote:

Dear Rod Ryker:

"Rod Ryker" <rryker@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:72681$4344bd2b$d8442ec5$19500@FUSE.NET...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com>
wrote in message
news:iR11f.13260$lq6.3837@fed1read01...

Dear Paul Stowe:

"Paul Stowe" <TheAetherist@best.net> wrote in message
news:ng49k1lf7fecmsa8g239ehml2lb7f1necl@4ax.com...

As Volta demonstrated in the last decade of the 18th century
when two different metals are brought into physical contact
(even when both are, to all measurable detectability,
electrically neutral, a.k.a. no measurable potential) there
will be generated a constant and measurable non-zero Potential
at the two opposing ends of the bimetallic coupling. To my
understanding, as long as no electrolyte is present the
metals are not be affected by any continuous circuit created
in this fashion.

"thermocouple", "thermopile", "Fermi energy"

I guess I don't understand this without a thermal gradient.
With a thermal gradient the Seebeck Effect, sure.

Now to my question,

Given that both metals are/were initially electrically
neutral and assuming conservation of charge, what
creates and maintains the measured Potential?

http://www.nphheaters.com/technical/thermo_letter.htm

Rod: After reviewing the first illustration and text of
the site you posted, I see that a short circuit is illustrated.
:)

Right. As Volta realized the Potential (thus available power)
is interesting but too small to be useful. Thus he introduced
the electrolyte and thus was born the modern version of the
common battery.

It comes from the "conduction electron behavior" of the
metals/alloys/composites forming the two joined elements.
David A. Smith

I'm sure it is due to a discontinuity at the connecting plane of
the two metals. But, as Al points out in his reply, even
dielectrics have this effect. That's why a clear plastic cover
on a paper report sticks & crackles when separated after being
left sittingstill & unattended for awhile.

With metals one would think that the free conduction electrons
would quickly & easily rearrange to counter any such
discontinuous Potentials. One would not expect a continuous
Potential (thus slight available power) from such a static system.

But, more importantly, if charge is conserved, how can this happen?

Paul Stowe

Rod: Regardless of how joined, or later when heat is applied,
the metals are under pressure.
The earth's magnetic field is the applicable reason that a current flows,
and a voltage is measured.
--
Rod Ryker...
The intricacies of nature is man's cannon fodder.
.

User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox"
Title: Re: Bimetallic electrical Potential and conservation of charge	07 Oct 2005 07:58:33 AM

Dear Rod Ryker:
"Rod Ryker" <rryker@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:8570b$4346170c$d8442838$25078@FUSE.NET...
....

Rod: Regardless of how joined, or later when heat is applied,
the metals are under pressure.
The earth's magnetic field is the applicable reason that a
current flows, and a voltage is measured.

So the effect disappears inside Helmholz coils? I don't think
so.
I believe from what Tom said, the effect is originated at the
interface. You might think of it as "entropy pressure" trying to
merge the two dissimilar metals, which is quite likely not
right...
David A. Smith
.

User: "Rod Ryker"
Title: Re: Bimetallic electrical Potential and conservation of charge	07 Oct 2005 01:47:52 PM

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Rhu1f.32218$lq6.15698@fed1read01...

Dear Rod Ryker:

"Rod Ryker" <rryker@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:8570b$4346170c$d8442838$25078@FUSE.NET...
...

Rod: Regardless of how joined, or later when heat is applied,
the metals are under pressure.
The earth's magnetic field is the applicable reason that a
current flows, and a voltage is measured.

So the effect disappears inside Helmholz coils? I don't think
so.

Rod: If you have a web site confirming an identical experiment
then please share. :)
Although the earth's magnetic field is in effect null
in this scenario, uniform or not, the magnetic pressure from the
Helmholtz coil pair raises the temperature of the metals.

I believe from what Tom said, the effect is originated at the
interface. You might think of it as "entropy pressure" trying to
merge the two dissimilar metals, which is quite likely not
right...

Rod: Agreed.
--
Rod Ryker...
The intricacies of nature is man's cannon fodder.

David A. Smith

User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox"
Title: Re: Bimetallic electrical Potential and conservation of charge	07 Oct 2005 03:24:53 PM

Dear Rod Ryker:
"Rod Ryker" <rryker@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:d4348$4346c2d2$d8442aed$6932@FUSE.NET...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com>
wrote in message
news:Rhu1f.32218$lq6.15698@fed1read01...

Dear Rod Ryker:

"Rod Ryker" <rryker@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:8570b$4346170c$d8442838$25078@FUSE.NET...
...

Rod: Regardless of how joined, or later when heat is
applied,
the metals are under pressure.
The earth's magnetic field is the applicable reason that a
current flows, and a voltage is measured.

So the effect disappears inside Helmholz coils? I don't think
so.

Rod: If you have a web site confirming an identical experiment
then please share. :)
Although the earth's magnetic field is in effect null
in this scenario, uniform or not, the magnetic pressure from
the
Helmholtz coil pair raises the temperature of the metals.

Since this is a simple request to fulfill:
http://lunar.ksc.nasa.gov/archives/documents/SP4214/SP-4214.pdf
thermocouples function on the Moon, and it has no magentic field
to speak of.
I am not sure if this isn't the same method of powering the
Pioneers (and others)...
But I suppose you could claim that the Sun's magnetic field is
supplying the "magnetic pressure" in this case... if you were
trying to be silly.
David A. Smith
.

User: "Rod Ryker"
Title: Re: Bimetallic electrical Potential and conservation of charge	07 Oct 2005 08:24:44 PM

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:gQA1f.36579$lq6.4540@fed1read01...

Dear Rod Ryker:

"Rod Ryker" <rryker@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:d4348$4346c2d2$d8442aed$6932@FUSE.NET...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com>
wrote in message
news:Rhu1f.32218$lq6.15698@fed1read01...

Dear Rod Ryker:

"Rod Ryker" <rryker@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:8570b$4346170c$d8442838$25078@FUSE.NET...
...

Rod: Regardless of how joined, or later when heat is
applied,
the metals are under pressure.
The earth's magnetic field is the applicable reason that a
current flows, and a voltage is measured.

So the effect disappears inside Helmholz coils? I don't think
so.

Rod: If you have a web site confirming an identical experiment
then please share. :)
Although the earth's magnetic field is in effect null
in this scenario, uniform or not, the magnetic pressure from
the
Helmholtz coil pair raises the temperature of the metals.

Since this is a simple request to fulfill:
http://lunar.ksc.nasa.gov/archives/documents/SP4214/SP-4214.pdf
thermocouples function on the Moon, and it has no magentic field
to speak of.

I am not sure if this isn't the same method of powering the
Pioneers (and others)...

But I suppose you could claim that the Sun's magnetic field is
supplying the "magnetic pressure" in this case... if you were
trying to be silly.

David A. Smith

Rod: EM Waves are more powerfull on the moon
because of the absence of atmosphere.
--
Rod Ryker...
The intricacies of nature is man's cannon fodder.
.

User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox"
Title: Re: Bimetallic electrical Potential and conservation of charge	07 Oct 2005 10:14:47 PM

Dear Rod Ryker:
"Rod Ryker" <rryker@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:36df8$43471fd9$d8442bcb$22590@FUSE.NET...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com>
wrote in message
news:gQA1f.36579$lq6.4540@fed1read01...

Dear Rod Ryker:

"Rod Ryker" <rryker@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:d4348$4346c2d2$d8442aed$6932@FUSE.NET...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com>
wrote in message
news:Rhu1f.32218$lq6.15698@fed1read01...

Dear Rod Ryker:

"Rod Ryker" <rryker@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:8570b$4346170c$d8442838$25078@FUSE.NET...
...

Rod: Regardless of how joined, or later when heat is
applied,
the metals are under pressure.
The earth's magnetic field is the applicable reason that
a
current flows, and a voltage is measured.

So the effect disappears inside Helmholz coils? I don't
think
so.

Rod: If you have a web site confirming an identical
experiment
then please share. :)
Although the earth's magnetic field is in effect null
in this scenario, uniform or not, the magnetic pressure from
the
Helmholtz coil pair raises the temperature of the metals.

Since this is a simple request to fulfill:
http://lunar.ksc.nasa.gov/archives/documents/SP4214/SP-4214.pdf
thermocouples function on the Moon, and it has no magentic
field
to speak of.

I am not sure if this isn't the same method of powering the
Pioneers (and others)...

But I suppose you could claim that the Sun's magnetic field is
supplying the "magnetic pressure" in this case... if you were
trying to be silly.

Rod: EM Waves are more powerfull on the moon
because of the absence of atmosphere.

I suspect you are now trolling...
Goodbye.
<plonk>
David A. Smith
.

User: "Rod Ryker"
Title: Re: Bimetallic electrical Potential and conservation of charge	08 Oct 2005 12:08:34 AM

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox
T:net@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:xQG1f.40474$lq6.6117@fed1read01...

Dear Rod Ryker:

"Rod Ryker" <rryker@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:36df8$43471fd9$d8442bcb$22590@FUSE.NET...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) <N: dlzc1 D:cox

T:net@nospam.com>

wrote in message
news:gQA1f.36579$lq6.4540@fed1read01...

Dear Rod Ryker:

"Rod Ryker" <rryker@fuse.net> wrote in

message

news:d4348$4346c2d2$d8442aed$6932@FUSE.NET...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) <N: dlzc1 D:cox

T:net@nospam.com>

wrote in message
news:Rhu1f.32218$lq6.15698@fed1read01...

Dear Rod Ryker:

"Rod Ryker" <rryker@fuse.net> wrote in

message

news:8570b$4346170c$d8442838$25078@FUSE.NET...

...

Rod: Regardless of how joined, or later

when heat is

applied,
the metals are under pressure.
The earth's magnetic field is the

applicable reason that

a
current flows, and a voltage is

measured.

So the effect disappears inside Helmholz

coils? I don't

think
so.

Rod: If you have a web site confirming an

identical

experiment
then please share. :)
Although the earth's magnetic field is in

effect null

in this scenario, uniform or not, the

magnetic pressure from

the
Helmholtz coil pair raises the temperature

of the metals.

Since this is a simple request to fulfill:

http://lunar.ksc.nasa.gov/archives/documents/SP421
4/SP-4214.pdf

thermocouples function on the Moon, and it

has no magentic

field
to speak of.

I am not sure if this isn't the same method

of powering the

Pioneers (and others)...

But I suppose you could claim that the Sun's

magnetic field is

supplying the "magnetic pressure" in this

case... if you were

trying to be silly.

Rod: EM Waves are more powerfull on the moon
because of the absence of atmosphere.

I suspect you are now trolling...
Goodbye.
<plonk>

David A. Smith

Rod: Of course no Helmholtz experiment as I asked
for re your pdf suggestion. :)
I just read the passages, RTG, the radioisotopes
(EM Waves)
are used to apply a pressure to the thermocouples
resulting in the
production of electricity.
So, your answer to Paul is EM Waves are the
culprit.
--
Rod Ryker...
The intricacies of nature is man's cannon fodder.
.

User: "Rod Ryker"
Title: Re: Bimetallic electrical Potential and conservation of charge	07 Oct 2005 11:21:03 PM

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:xQG1f.40474$lq6.6117@fed1read01...